RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00163
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She receive Board Certification Pay (BCP) for the period 1 Jan 11 through 31 Dec 13.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She did maintain her medical credentials and feels that she earned the BCP. In Jan 11, she submitted her updated board certificate to her credentials program manager, not realizing she was required to submit her updated certificate to AFPC, medical special pays, to continue her BCP. Her error in not recertifying was due to not finding the right balance between work and looking after her personal interest.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 13 May 02.
On 6 Jan 14, the applicant resigned under honorable conditions, and was credited with 11 years, 7 months, and 24 days of active service.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPANF recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicants records contain documentation showing her medical certificate in Family Practice was valid from 2003 through 2010, therefore, on 31 Dec 10 her BCP was stopped by AFPC Medical Special Pays. The applicant was responsible for providing her recertification documentation to AFPC, Medical Special Pays to ensure continued BCP, but she did not do so. From 2002 until Dec 2013, she received different types of medical special pays, each pay type requiring her to submit a signed additional special pay (ASP) contract. The first statement on each contract initialed by the applicant indicated she read the Air Force Medical Officer Special Pay Plan, which had a dedicated area addressing BCP requirements. According to the Comptroller General, retroactive administrative pay is generally prohibited barring an administrative error. In addition, when interpreting statutes, there is a presumption against retroactivity. Statutes should generally not be read to have retroactive effect unless specific language requires. Further, Federal Courts have consistently defined injustice within Title 10, United States Code (USC), §1552 as behavior or action that rises to the level that shocks the sense of justice. This is a high standard which requires more than merely deciding that an action taken might be viewed as unfair or which has had arguably adverse consequences. The applicants record should not be altered as the error was on the part of the applicant, not the Air Force, and the circumstances simply do not rise to a level that shocks the sense of justice.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPANF evaluation is at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 28 Jul 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00163 in Executive Session on 27 Jan 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Jan 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPANF, dated 27 Mar 14,
w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jul 14.
2
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
1
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
4
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00353
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00353 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She receive Physician Additional Special Pay (ASP) from 2010 to 2013. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She thought when she filed for her specialty pay bonuses in 2010 that the ASP was part of the Multi-year Incentive Special Pay (MISP) and Multi-year Special Pay (MSP) contracts she submitted, but it was not. The...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02575
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02575 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She receive retroactive payment of Legacy Incentive Specialty Pay (ISP) for the period 2012 and 2013. After reviewing the applicants records and documentation submitted, they determined that the applicant submitted a single year ISP request 30 Oct 12 and her supervisor declined to certify her ISP contract. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01870
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01870 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He retroactively receive Medical Corps Additional Special Pay (ASP) and Incentive Special Pay (ISP) with an effective date of 12 Jul 13. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01903
Members are solely responsible for updating their records to reflect board certification. If the officer is drawing BCP, the DHQB reflects Yes under board certification. As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00204
The applicant was eligible for NC ISP for FY 12, however, since she filed her contract more than three months after her effective date, the contract would not have been timely submitted and would not have been processed by AFPC Medical Special Pays with the requested effective date. Based on the permanent revocation of her clinical nursing practice she is not eligible for medical special pays to include the FY 13 NC ISP. The applicant contends her FY 12 ISP contract was properly...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01648
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01648 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive his entitlement to Additional Special Pay (ASP) and Incentive Special Pay (ISP), which was not disbursed. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibit C and D. AIR...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02996
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02996 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Separation Program Designator (SPD) Code of GHK (substandard performance) on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to GHF (Other). The applicant disagreed with the proposed action, and requested a Board of Inquiry (BOI) review her case. On 17 Sep 13, the applicants...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02096
On 13 Nov 13, the applicant was commissioned in the grade of captain (O-3) in the Reserve of the Air Force. While we note that despite the fact the applicant was led to believe she would be accessed in the grade of captain, her appointment in the grade of first lieutenant was procedurally correct and consistent with the constructive service credit (CSC) policy prescribed in AFI 36-2005, which was the policy in effect at the time of the applicants accession once the FY13 CSC policy expired...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02234
Since the applicant’s supervisor at Ramstein AB called her previous supervisor at Lackland AFB to inquire about the level of the decoration, and he was told they did not consider her for an MSM because the multiyear retention bonus was not paid, administrative channels are considered to have been exhausted, and it is appropriate for the case to be considered by the BCMR. Her complete submission is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01894
According to Reserve Order BA-249 dated 19 June 2008, the applicant was promoted to the grade of captain with a DOR of 5 July 2008 in the Reserve of the Air Force. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/JAX recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. To obtain relief, the...